Wouldn't opposition to Bush's failed policies be an act of patriotism rather than treason?

Question

I believe the underlying basis of the "You are either with us or against us'' mentality on the part of Bush and the Neo-Cons is PARTISAN first and foremost.

If Bush's foreign policies on Iraq have killed more Americans than 9-11, isnt it our patriotic duty to say "This is wrong and it must change"?

Why is criticism of a disasterous administration "treason"?
Isn't looking at the situation objectively without a partisan slant be in fact our patriotic duty at this time, given the number of American lives at stake?

Answer 1

yes,, you are right of course, and correct,, however,,, those who follow Bush don't care about right and wrong,, they are instead focused on their narrow minded views about good and evil,,, the right wing (born-again), and their KJV,,,, a version of the Holy Bible written in 1611, by a King, named James,, that condoned his own mothers beheading, no less,,, "your either with us or against us",,, is hypocrisy,, that has been recognized by the majority of Americans,,,, thus the November midterms,, therefore,, hopefully,, the USA can make some corrections in regards to the failed doctrine and policies of George W. Bush,,, he is not the decider,, he is a divider,, and the people will get rid of him in due time,,,,, he lied to the country,, and invaded a sovereign nation without an immanent threat,,
the imminent threat was in a memo on the VP's desk on 9-11,, about Osama bin Laden,, and his plans to attack America,,,,, George W. was asleep at the switch,, yes we as a nation have a duty to stop the treason,,
the treason is in our own government,,,, in the peoples White House,, running rampant,,, like a growing cancer.

Answer 2

I wouldn't call it either. I would call it a matter of opinion, or a difference in political views. I will also agree with you that the statement "You are either with us or against us" is partisan, and shows that there is a sort of "Us vs. Them" mentality going on somewhere in there.

I disagree with you about patriotic duties, though. Your statement is one that I would consider to be more of a civic right, than a patriotic duty.

I disagree with your argument that the current administration is disastrous(this isn't the point of my answer, though), but if anyone is to say that saying it amounts to treason obviously has no true understanding of what the term implies. You have every right to feel the way that you do, and every right to try to change the situation until you think it has been resolved. Honestly, I think our patriotic duty is having opinions, and feeling strongly about them, and fighting for what we believe is right.

Answer 3

The reason some call it treason is because you start with your goal, which is the destruction of the Bush administration, and then to the means, which is losing the war in Iraq, and then pointing to the casualties that are exacerbated by your emboldening of the enemy as if they were the fault of those you would not allow to prosecute the war properly.

I think they have a point. If you really look at it objectively, you can see that the liberal actions have aided the enemy and caused more deaths, regardless of your intentions.

However, I do realize that asking a liberal to consider anything objectively is tantamount to asking a chimpanzee to perform Shakespeare. It's simply beyond your ability to understand the concept, let alone see any value in the exercise.

Answer 4

Yes, it would. Good Americans constantly examine what their country does and determines if it is on track with what we believe in. Even if you disagree that the policies are failed, you must know that any good citizen is constantly aware of what their country is doing and offers an opinion about it.


Why is criticism of a disasterous administration "treason"? That's easy to answer, because when people disagree no one gets things entirely their way. So our government has used the media to twist the minds of its citizens.

Answer 5

you should learn your data, i don't be attentive to the place you got here up with the statements above, yet maximum can not be any farther from the actuality. He helps the troops in Iraq, and the undeniable fact that we've not been hit at abode for the reason that taking the "conflict on terrorism" to the place they're. that must be Iraq, Afghanistan, and different places that ought to choose to make certain the U.S. fail! What failed tax cuts...the financial gadget is convalescing from the Clinton years of spend, spend spend! The tax stimulus funds that easily everyone seems to be getting, relatively can not be referred to as "for the prosperous" He helps the appointment of judges who will persist with the form, hardly ever getting rid of from our civil liberties. If the Patriot Act by some ability takes away out of your previous liberties; it particularly is for the reason which you have been doing some thing to reason harm to our u . s . a ., or different smart harm defenseless human beings

Answer 6

I am not a Bush supporter. Even so, I think it's unfair to say Bush's international policy is a failure. The only true failure in his policies is fiscal control.
It's is likely that Bush's blunder is securing post-Saddam Iraq is closely tied to the fact that the USA didn't have the money to commit the troops needed to settle the country. Bush tried to create cheap peace in Iraq and it just didn't work out.
Criticizing Bush in that respect is not unpatriotic. But, supporting the enemy is.

Answer 7

first off the statement "you are with us or against us" was in reference to routing out terrorists. talking to other countries saying that if you are not willing to help stop the radical ideology of terrorism then you are supporting it. he was not talking about someone who disagrees with tactics.

second criticism is and never has been equated to treason by anybody worth listening to. counter productive or emboldening maybe but that is not treason. however some things people call criticism have gone past criticism which could move into treasonous areas and disguised as criticism.

Answer 8

It really depends on the words being used to oppose it.

Calling Bush a fascist, a chimp, a moron, or comparisons to Hitler, etc, are clearly not constructive, though not necessarily treasonous. Calling for his assassination would be, however.

It's also not Congress' duty to run the military. That's why I have an issue with the 'deadline', not to mention all the unneeded pork that went along with it. If they really wanted to pass a deadline bill, they should have done so cleanly.

Answer 9

Which policies have failed? Which policies have been given enough time to succeed. Rome did not fall in a day or even in a decade. Russia spent decades in building the USSR and never succeeded fully to control the peoples they defeated. 1/2 hour sitcoms and drive thru windows have given you a lack of concentration on how to succeed at long term goals.

Answer 10

For some reason, there is a sect of people in this country who believes that patriotism is loyalty to the President and his policies, even though those are not what define this country.

The country is defined by the Constitution. It has nothing to do with George Bush. But for some reason, even when he acts in opposition to the Constitution, cons freak out when you don't support him.